high_tea wrote:Oh, common sense tells us so! That's all right then, why worry about actual data when there's common sense to be had!

I'm sorry. What actual data? Oh sorry did you mean 'focus groups' .

high_tea wrote:I'll tell you something about the Brisbane bikeshare: I believe the focus groups

Ok great! Well the focus group in question "frequently described mandatory helmet laws as a reason for not using the scheme*. Focus group participants felt the requirement to use a helmet reduced the spontaneity often associated with PBSS use." In addition, in Melbourne focus groups 61%** cite having to wear helmets or lack of available helmets as a barrier.*Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach (2012)**Alta Bike Share (2011). Melbourne bike share survey, Melbourne.

Since you believe focus groups surely now you are convinced. Or is it only focus groups that agree with you.

high_tea wrote:MHL repeal won't solve any of these problems. Other things can, and should, be done. That's what I understand the article to be arguing for. It seems like a reasonable contention to me. I don't understand what the fuss is about.

high_tea wrote:Oh, common sense tells us so! That's all right then, why worry about actual data when there's common sense to be had!

I'm sorry. What actual data? Oh sorry did you mean 'focus groups' .

No, I meant actual data, lack of which creates gaps that people attempt to fill with focus groups and worse.

human909 wrote:

high_tea wrote:I'll tell you something about the Brisbane bikeshare: I believe the focus groups

Ok great! Well the focus group in question "frequently described mandatory helmet laws as a reason for not using the scheme*. Focus group participants felt the requirement to use a helmet reduced the spontaneity often associated with PBSS use." In addition, in Melbourne focus groups 61%** cite having to wear helmets or lack of available helmets as a barrier.*Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach (2012)**Alta Bike Share (2011). Melbourne bike share survey, Melbourne.

Since you believe focus groups surely now you are convinced. Or is it only focus groups that agree with you.

Oh, I agree with them about the helmets too. ISTR the Brisbane focus group said roughly the same thing. But yeah, it's only a focus group.

high_tea wrote:MHL repeal won't solve any of these problems. Other things can, and should, be done. That's what I understand the article to be arguing for. It seems like a reasonable contention to me. I don't understand what the fuss is about.

Neither article is arguing this. Try re reading them.[/quote]

When I read the second last paragraph:

In order to bring Australian bike share usage closer to international norms (short of removing helmet legislation) the following measures should be considered:

high_tea wrote:In order to bring Australian bike share usage closer to international norms (short of removing helmet legislation) the following measures should be considered:

The author admits helmets are the main issue! But addressing MHLs were never part of the SCOPE of the study.

The Author's own research SHOWS that it is mostly about helmets! But it also shows a number of other factors. That is what the article is about! I'll quote him again "Whilst no silver bullet exists in overcoming the challenges of operating PBSS within a mandatory helmet context..."

Given that the studies own research shows that helmets are the biggest factor yet concludes that "In order to increase the popularity of the CityCyclescheme, the results of this study suggest that a more accessible, spontaneous sign-up process is required, 24/7 opening hours, and greater incentives to sign up new members and casual users, as seeing people using CityCycle appears critical to further take up." Notice that MHLs are not referred to in the conclusion!

The possibility of removal of MHLs was not within the scope of the study! Of course this is unsurprising given that the the research was done as part of CARRS and the funding came from Queensland Transport and Main Roads.

Of course what do I know. I only have read the research paper and read the actual data.

high_tea wrote:In order to bring Australian bike share usage closer to international norms (short of removing helmet legislation) the following measures should be considered:

The author admits helmets are the main issue! But addressing MHLs were never part of the SCOPE of the study.

The Author's own research SHOWS that it is mostly about helmets! But it also shows a number of other factors. That is what the article is about! I'll quote him again "Whilst no silver bullet exists in overcoming the challenges of operating PBSS within a mandatory helmet context..."

Given that the studies own research shows that helmets are the biggest factor yet concludes that "In order to increase the popularity of the CityCyclescheme, the results of this study suggest that a more accessible, spontaneous sign-up process is required, 24/7 opening hours, and greater incentives to sign up new members and casual users, as seeing people using CityCycle appears critical to further take up." Notice that MHLs are not referred to in the conclusion!

The possibility of removal of MHLs was not within the scope of the study! Of course this is unsurprising given that the the research was done as part of CARRS and the funding came from Queensland Transport and Main Roads.

Of course what do I know. I only have read the research paper and read the actual data.

Okay, I now understand what the fuss is about: someone turned down a convenient opportunity to damn MHLs from the pulpit.

elantra wrote:What gives me the poops is how helmet law becomes such a cop-out for failure to acheive a generally safer riding environmentWhen something goes badly wrong it becomes an issue of "was the person using the helmet correctly" instead of "why did the collision occur"Helmet law is just a massive cop-out for state and federal governments too scared to enact better standards of driver behaviour in the general community.

Yep, it is a total cop out and a classic case of blaming the victim. The government introduced MHLs and now they can just wash their hands of cyclist safety by pointing to the MHLs and claiming they have done all they can.

high_tea wrote:No, I meant actual data, lack of which creates gaps that people attempt to fill with focus groups and worse

Well we've had nearly a generation for the safetycrats to provide immaculately structured, meticulously researched, repeatable and peer reviewed data supporting their then unproven contention that forcing one subgroup of road users to don an EPS chamberpot would provide miraculous public health benefit.

And they haven't.

Why?

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

high_tea wrote:Okay, I now understand what the fuss is about: someone turned down a convenient opportunity to damn MHLs from the pulpit.

Yes, I agree with you, that is exactly what the fuss is about. It is like blaming Fat Freddy for the smell and lack of space at the table when there is an elephant in the room.

And because I didn't want the elephant to distract people from Mulger bill's I'll repost it.

Mulger bill wrote:Well we've had nearly a generation for the safetycrats to provide immaculately structured, meticulously researched, repeatable and peer reviewed data supporting their then unproven contention that forcing one subgroup of road users to don an EPS chamberpot would provide miraculous public health benefit.

And they haven't.

Why?

Last edited by human909 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

high_tea wrote:No, I meant actual data, lack of which creates gaps that people attempt to fill with focus groups and worse

Well we've had nearly a generation for the safetycrats to provide immaculately structured, meticulously researched, repeatable and peer reviewed data supporting their then unproven contention that forcing one subgroup of road users to don an EPS chamberpot would provide miraculous public health benefit.

And they haven't.

Why?

My personal opinion: because cycling policy barely registers at all with the government of the day. So yeah, I agree with your point.

high_tea wrote:Okay, I now understand what the fuss is about: someone turned down a convenient opportunity to damn MHLs from the pulpit.

Yes, I agree with you, that is exactly what the fuss is about. It is like blaming Fat Freddy for the smell and lack of space at the table when there is an elephant in the room.

Cute. I too think there is an elephant in the room: the widely-held view that bicycles are a toy, not serious transport. Unfortunately, this can't be changed with any act of Parliament. It's a much harder problem than that. The attitude, and the closely-related view that cycling is inherently dangerous, grew up without MHLs. It's naive to think that MHL repeal will make it go away.

human909 wrote:Pssst!... I believe his point was that MHLs don't provide public health benefits.

Well, partially. There was also a bit of a rant against bent research such as that mentioned earlier, funded by that CARRS mob. Who in their right mind would believe studies showing tobacco smoke has little negative health effects once they found out the research was paid for by BAT.

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

Maybe because above a "certain" speed, all the magic mushroom does is let you live the rest of your existence being fed through a pipe up your nose as you drool uncontrollably onto the pillow you will never leave as the people you love are slowly destroyed by caring for you? NOT how I want to spend my time...

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

Mulger bill wrote:Maybe because above a "certain" speed, all the magic mushroom does is let you live the rest of your existence being fed through a pipe up your nose as you drool uncontrollably onto the pillow you will never leave as the people you love are slowly destroyed by caring for you? NOT how I want to spend my time...

Above a certain head impact velocity, maybe. That's completely different to speed, though. Speed isn't a good predictor of whether there will be a head impact, nor of how severe it will be. I'm with you on that hypothetical, though. Trouble is, I can't think of any satisfactory way of predicting how bad a head impact is going to be in advance. Such is life.

Mulger bill wrote:Maybe because above a "certain" speed, all the magic mushroom does is let you live the rest of your existence being fed through a pipe up your nose as you drool uncontrollably onto the pillow you will never leave as the people you love are slowly destroyed by caring for you? NOT how I want to spend my time...

but shaun that's the same for seatbelts and all other protective equipment. i agree it's a problem, but it's not specific to bike helmets. you can always pull the plug on someone who is fed through a straw, but you can't get someone back who will spend the rest of their life dribbling over themselves who would have been Ok if they'd worn a helmet. now how can you argue with that?

Mulger bill wrote:Maybe because above a "certain" speed, all the magic mushroom does is let you live the rest of your existence being fed through a pipe up your nose as you drool uncontrollably onto the pillow you will never leave as the people you love are slowly destroyed by caring for you? NOT how I want to spend my time...

but shaun that's the same for seatbelts and all other protective equipment. i agree it's a problem, but it's not specific to bike helmets. you can always pull the plug on someone who is fed through a straw, but you can't get someone back who will spend the rest of their life dribbling over themselves who would have been Ok if they'd worn a helmet. now how can you argue with that?

Do we have any stats on improved brain injuries relating to helmets? It was argued that MHL improved cyclist safety but actually as a population we are no better off because head impacts aren't the only problem facing riders...

Mulger bill wrote:Maybe because above a "certain" speed, all the magic mushroom does is let you live the rest of your existence being fed through a pipe up your nose as you drool uncontrollably onto the pillow you will never leave as the people you love are slowly destroyed by caring for you? NOT how I want to spend my time...

but shaun that's the same for seatbelts and all other protective equipment. i agree it's a problem, but it's not specific to bike helmets. you can always pull the plug on someone who is fed through a straw, but you can't get someone back who will spend the rest of their life dribbling over themselves who would have been Ok if they'd worn a helmet. now how can you argue with that?

Do we have any stats on improved brain injuries relating to helmets? It was argued that MHL improved cyclist safety but actually as a population we are no better off because head impacts aren't the only problem facing riders...

Forests and trees mate, forests and trees

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

Xplora wrote:Do we have any stats on improved brain injuries relating to helmets? It was argued that MHL improved cyclist safety but actually as a population we are no better off because head impacts aren't the only problem facing riders...

Sorry. I'll admit that my other posts here were done when I was tired and grumpy and didn't really think when I posted (which I have done in other places throughout BNA ) so let's have a good discussion.

Q.1 Say that repealing MHL will actually encourage more people to cycle. If MHL was repealed right now, do you think there will be a sudden increase in cyclist or it will change over time?

For me if MHL was repealed another time I think there might be an increase in cyclist BUT if it was repealed now I think that the effect will be a lot less or not at all. If you look at other countries where cycling numbers are high (other than MHL) there is also one big thing in common. It is that they have a bicycle network. I know in the Netherlands they have a huge and sophisticated network (of course) as does many other countries. For example my friend who came back from Japan said that sooo many people cycle there. You see massive groups of children riding together to school, people riding to work etc. but no one wears a helmet...... And no one rides on the road. Same in NT where MHL is relaxed and (as I have heard) many people just ride on the footpath and you don't really have to ride on the road to get from A to B. Now in Sydney you have to ride on the road. To others/those who don't cycle, this can be seen as dangerous. This idea is furthered by things you hear on the news, videos you see on YouTube etc. In a survey which I quoted in one of my other posts, of 1000 people surveyed the biggest reason for people not riding was because they felt they were not safe riding amongst cars/traffic. If we can change this then the MHL barrier, rather than being a smaller lesser thing compared to other reasons, will suddenly become the deciding factor in getting people to start cycling. This is when I believe that repealing MHL will have the greatest effect. If it was repealed now I think that most of the people who don't ride and don't like helmets will still not ride because they still think that the roads are unsafe to ride on. When we get to the stage where these other reasons for not cycling become a lot smaller, then I think is the only time when repealing MHL will encourage more people to cycle. Do you know what I mean?

Another thing to consider: a lot of you are saying that the current helmets don't offer much protection. Would you support MHL if the aus helmet standards were a lot higher and people had to wear better helmets that offer more protection? What if they changed the law and we all had to wear better helmets and there was actually evidence to suggest that with better helmets there was less people getting head injuries from cycling?

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.